FlaSoxxJim

To make it worse, I think it's actually a Tribune Company publication.

I believe they were Johnny and the Leisure Suits. Tres influential

Whether a portion was deferred or not, if the offer was straight iup $36 million/3 years, it certainly was fair and all we could have offered. If that value was propped up because of the includion of performance-based incentives, ala' the deal offered Buehrle last year, then I would say the offer was not what it should have been.

Wasn't that Steve Dahl's band?? Very influential. They influenced the s*** out of that second game against Detroit on that an ill-fated August day 1979.

VU definitely. And good call on the Ramones too, whoever said that.

Now I'm homesick! Portillo's. Al's Italian beef. Harold's Chicken (extra sauce and an order of gizzards!). Maxwell St. pork chop Sandwich. Big honkin burritos from any number of places. For dessert... Salerno butter cookies. Lou Malnotti's pizza. Lindy's chilli. Rainbow cones. That great Italian ice place on Taylor St. (Mario's?) Homesick and hungry!

Good thread. Agreed on Sinatra, Glenn Miller, Beatles, Run DMC, Hendrix, REM, jackO, et al. Important earlier influences Mozart (he was pop back then) Chopin Mahler Fats Waller Aaron Copeland Gershwin Charlie Parker Duke Ellington Chuck Berry Elvis

I love Eric's guitar on that song too. But, I would not for a moment chuck the collective body of George's guitar work in favor of that solo. I love Billy Preston's piano solo on Get Back, the pocket trumpet part on Penny lane by the london Philharmonic's first chair, and even Mal Evan's killer (?) anvil playing on Maxwell's Silver Hammer. The Beatle albums had solid musicianship from members and non-members, and brilliant prodcution from George Martin (the true "Fifth Beatle", thank you). Your point is well taken that none of the four Beatle's were virtuosi, or musically (mechanically-speraking) the most gifted talents ever recorded. Yeah, John's rhythm guitar abilities were lacking sometimes, and I admit that some of my favorite Beatles drumming is the stuff Paul snuck in to do while Ringo wasn't looking. It's what they did with those limited abilities that makes it all the more amazing. Technically proficient bassists will bash Paul for playing with a pick. But he completely revolutionized the way bass is played in pop music. His novel intervals and walking lines are the most emulated bass lines ever recorded, period. Similar arguments can be made for George's guitar work, although the influence is not as readily traced. I'm not an apologist for the Beatles. The post-breakup solo work of all four is very uneven and often uninspired. But that's because there will always be only one Beatles, and the whole was vastly more than the sum of its parts. The right people with the right talent (mostly as songwriters), at the right time and place. I enjoy the film American Graffiti on a lot of levels. In particular I love the time setting. It's not set in the 50s like most people think. It's set in the early 60s, just before the Beatles changed the face of music. The old guard was leary of the new sounds of the Beach Boys, and there really is nothing else on the horizon. It invokes a kind of Orwellian precience as to where modern music would end up if the Beatles didn't come along when they did to steer the course. The most innovative Beach Boys stuff from the late 60s, Brian Wilson's "Pet Sounds," would not have been made if the Rubber-Soul era Beatles hadn't made them evolve. Ironically, Pet Sounds is always referenced as a huge influence for Sgt. Pepper, so there's a great inspirational synergy there. That's the way musical forms evolve, and there is no way to reasonably argue that anyone ever had more influence on that evolution in pop music than the Beatles.

Would have been somewhat easier without the 6 million we're going to owe a "Twilight" Frank Thomas. With this news, if the Sox are going to make any significant moves this offseason, they will have to shop around PK. Or Magglio, right? Wouldn't that seem more likely, given his salary, production, and the fact that it's his walkaway year? Unfortunately, I have to agree. I don't see any other way for the Sox to compete without increasing payroll drastically. The story from the MLB site on Frank's return doesn't sound good as far as the 2004 payroll. Williams flatly states that the $51 million level from 2003 is not expected to increase significantly for this year. Apparently the $12 million or so we offered Colon is going back into Reinsdorf's pockets and not being used to bring in some more talent. I assume the hopeful projection of $60-65 million by many of us was based on our collective assumption that money not spent on Colon would still be spent on improving the team. PK or Magglio will have to go obviously. Those two, Frank, Carlos, Loaiza, Buehrle, and Koch alread account for like $45 million. That's before resigning Sandy or Robbie, or Jose or whever we hope might replace him, or any new pitching. I'm really depressed now

The Beatles changed the pop music world like none before or after. Guitar-oriented, harmony-rich power pop would not exist as it does without the influence of the Beatles. The were in the right place at the right time, but there's wayyy more to it than that. They were also the right people with the right genius. Do you think if Herman's Hermits of Jerry and the Pacemakers landed that big record deal before the Beatles the result would have been the same? PA, every one of the first three songs you listed (I'm Down, Paperback Writer, Rocky Raccoon) is a McCartney composition (the "Frer-A-Jaque-Aah" backing vocal on PBW is pure Jogh, though). John and Paul agreed early on they would share credit on all their compositions regardless of who wrote whhat or how much of a collaboration it actually was. Recall Paul just last year gitting into a Row with Yoko for changing the "Lennon-McCartney" credit to "McCartney-Lennon" on his signature songs for a recent album release? In defense of the 'simplicity' of tthe early stuff, much of it is not as straightforward as it sounds. Some of the early harmonies use really strange intervals, especially the third parts that George got. And George's guitar was a fusion of pop/skiffle, jazz, and R&B nearly from the start. Some of the really straight sounding stuff has got amazingly cool inversions/diminished/11ths/13ths, etc., that just were not the standard for a band coming out of the schoolgroup skiffle world. Rubber Soul was certainly the point where the "Later Beatles" sound really took full hold, but those elements are alrready bubbling under the surface on "Beatles For Sale." If you haven't put that one on in a while you should. It will astound you, and it's a great bridge between the early and later albums. Yeah, they had met Dylan right around that time and were elistening to all kinds of diferent stuff for inspiration, but I think the big change was they decided to screw formula and write non-conventional (for pop) forms. A pop song didn't have to be 1:50 in length and follow verse/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/out any more. I'm sure the weed and the LSD didn't hurt either...

Without getting into lots of detail, anyone who does not see that there is a gun-death epidemic in this country simply chooses not to see that fact. Recognizing a problem and providing a solution are two different matters, of course. Last year, CDC reported 11,127 gun deaths in the US, and the 2002 US population estimate was around 280.5 million. Canada’s population of ca. 32 million is about 11.5% that of the US. To be on par with us, Canadians would need to shoot dead around 1,280 of their countrymen. In reality, only 165 Canadians died from gunshots in 2002, so clearly they are not keeping pace with the Big Dogs. Germany’s population (ca 83 million in 2002) is 30% that of the US. So if they were as gun happy as us, they should have offed around 3,340 of each other last year. They, of course, also dropped the ball and only shot 381 fellow citizens dead. Gun control barely exists in the country at the present. Let’s start with real gun control reform, not an outright ban on personal firearms. I see sportsmen’s ownership of guns as perfectly legitimate, and I think most sportsmen are responsible gun owners. I don’t see a pressing need for public availability of high-powered handguns, assault weapons, semi-automatic rifles, etc. Very powerful lobbying entities for years have thwarted real gun control reform by hiding behind the Second Amendment. The movie and video game industry has no similarly powerful lobby (and let’s face it, the First Amendment has taken a rather severe beating since 9-11). Since comic books, TV, Marylyn Manson, etc., have all had their turns, the makers of violent video games will now take the fall as the source of all the youth violence this go around (That’s an observation and not a defense of the video game industry, which has done a very poor job of keeping highly objectionable material out of the hands of kids.). Drug use, alcoholism, prostitution…certainly issues to deal with. But that doesn’t mean gun violence in the nation shouldn’t also be addressed.

Glad to keep Frank for 6 million for sure. 40+ HRs last year and top 10 in runs produced, OPS, etc., even with lthe low average he ended up with. I hope he finds his swing early, stays patient, decides what kind of hiitter he is going to be, doesn't pout if he is moved down in the order, and gets at least 30 games at 1B. Is the general concensus that now this piece of the puzzle is in place, Ozzie's chances at the manager's spot just went from slim to nearly none?

As do I. Wouldn't it be nice if we could always debate like this instead of stooping to personal attacks. Where's the fun in that asswipe

mmmmmBeer, this is actually a thought provoking discussion. Thank you for taking the time to find those quotes. The Founding Fathers were passionate, engaged men. That the core beliefs framed by them more than two centuries ago still stand as the cornerstones of government is amazing. But, the opinions of the Founding Fathers were much more dynamic than their words – frozen in time and taken out of precise historical context – can convey. Hamilton is the one, from your quote list, that I am most familiar with. I have not read the new biography, and a lot of my knowledge of he and the other FF’s is from R. Hofstadter’s American Political Tradition, which I admit is getting long in the tooth. There are no dates for the following Hamilton quotes you provide: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..." Alexander Hamilton "The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Alexander Hamilton "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton I will venture a guess (I’m not stating with certainty) that the statements were made before, during, or immediately following the Revolutionary War. At that time, Hamilton was a typical Whig in his political ideology… very big on natural rights and personal liberty. But, he changed his own leanings in dramatic fashion just after this period, and was actually very fearful of the penchant of the people for promoting anarchy. Hamilton actually was the first major proponent of a strong centralized government. A concept that is anathema to so many personal freedoms advocates today, but was largely put in motion by a former hardcore personal freedoms Founding Father. Many of his contemporaries thought his notion of the need for a strong centralized government was oppressive. To his credit, he worked with others toward a government that was not his ideal, but he never suppressed his own beliefs on the subject. (Aside: Hamilton was also the first to advocate the direct collection of income taxes from the populace by an appointed tax agency of the government, and he proposed such even during his Whig days.) Not detracting anything away from the man, just pointing out that he personally changed his viewpoints on personal determination over the span of a few short years. So in answer to the question of ‘what has changed in the last 200 years to think we don’t still need guns in everybody’s hands,’ I would suggest the reality is that quite a lot has changed. Hamilton sensed the climate had changed enough in about a decade to start to tone down is rhetoric on the subject, and certainly the change since then has been equally dramatic. This is a good discussion. I won’t reiterate the earlier allusions to statistics suggesting you are like a million times more likely to have your kid accidentally shoot himself or someone else then you are of preserving personal freedom with the handgun under your pillow. I do enjoy the partial irony that one-time advocate of arming the citizenry Alex Hamilton was killed in a duel (by Aaron Burr of the “Got Milk” commercial fame). These Founding Gangbangers were having it out over the way Hamilton had dissed Burr’s political ambitions over an extended period of time (shoulda had a 48-hour cooling off period then I guess). Some authorities contend Hamilton was not planning on firing at all (I’m not a gun guy, but in a duel I don’t think ‘stand there’ would be my strategy). They state that his gun fired after he was hit and felled. Hamilton’s apparent pacifist stance toward the end of his life probably had a lot to do with the fact that his own son had earlier also been killed in a duel. The quotes attributed to Hamilton and often used to advocate handgun rights are frozen in time, even though Hamilton himself was not. He, ironically, became somewhat Torey-like in his concern that the masses really were “poor reptiles” that would not accede to the “better sort” when they should. He came to believe people were ‘reasoning but not reasoned,’ but his earlier writings can not reflect this of course.

Yeah, Texas. The old joke is that Texas is also the only state that allows you to mount a murder defense of, "Well, he just needed killin'." I've really just been ticked of at Texas since my favorite brewery, Austin's Celis Brewery, closed its doors. Miller's fault more than any one else's of course, for buying interest and then killing it, but I miss that witbier! I appreciate the forethought of the Founding Fathers. The called the general populace of their day "poor reptiles" that would "bask in the sun, ere noon, they will bite." Yet despite their understanding that the average citizen was no great shakes, they ensured that there was a constitutional right to bear arms in defense of the state. The unwritten side of that is that the People can also exist as a very real check against abuse of power of an elected government that devolves to tyrany. But "RIGHT to revolt" explicitly suggests a specific constitutional provision or charter, as exists for the right to free expression, right to free religious pursuit, right to bear arms as part of a well regulated melitia, right to PEACABLY (i.e., in a non-revolutionary manner) assemble, etc. Texas excepted, my question is where is the RIGHT (not the means) to revolt guaranteed for the citizenry of the country?

Let me apologize up front for my apparent ignorance on the issue. Please point me to the source of our "right to revolt." I just reread the 2nd Ammendment a bunch of times and I can't find it there. I read a couple state constitutions (even Tennessee's), and could not trace the source of our right to revolt. If the right to bear arms was repealed then certainly the ABILITY to successfully astage a revolt may also be taken away. But right and ability are two diffferent matters. I see the constitutional protection for the wherewithall of revolution but not for the right to undertake one.

Yet another good Flash piece by someone who can get that software to play nice. I'm jealous.

Actually I think most everything he has done has been largely self-financed. I think that qualifies as putting his money where his mouth is. He won't lose the lawsuit.

Good stuff! People who really can do great stuf in Flash really bug me. maybe I'd better do the tutorial again

Colon jerseys are on sale.

Run for something and I'll vote for you. What won you over, libertarian or bat-s*** crazy? ... does it have to be either/or?? I just think it's a winning combination.

I think we'd see Jerry Manuel in Boston before we'd see Joe Torre. That is not intended as a satirical post eitther. I'd take Kelly over Little at any rate, but both are probably long shots.

Run for something and I'll vote for you.

I'd definitely sign up for the free trial subscription. Seriously, I am one of the few people who have taken paid premium onling music content seriously. I don't mean just the "privelige" of paying a per song download fee when I would just as soon have the damn CD in my hand anyway. In the past I have paid $75 a year to subscribe to get Todd Rundgren's Interociter premium content (also includes comps for any commercial CD's that come out during that period). I didn't renew this past year, but I tried to do my part to help financially in testing the waters of next-generation streaming audio enertainment. based on personal experience as both developer and recipient of streaming media content, I would pass on any streaming content sites that used RealMedia as the native media format, but might consider trying a service built around QuickTime.